|
Post by Schizm on Oct 27, 2011 15:54:07 GMT 1
I am not saying I am sure it isn't, but I don't remember anything was said about the influence of the trainer on the trainingspeed was not linear. What I do know for sure is that it was linear in the beta version, because the formula was posted on the forum back then. So unless someone comes up with a link or IP states that I am mistaking, I will keep assuming that it is linear.
|
|
|
Post by goof on Oct 27, 2011 16:22:05 GMT 1
You're only talking about the influence of the trainer, but does the mood of the cyclist only improve the performance of the cyclists during races? And the influence of skill level of a cyclist on the trainingsspeed of a skill isn't linear, right?
|
|
|
Post by zakelijk on Oct 27, 2011 20:52:38 GMT 1
I didn't know about this thing, Can is still sort my cyclist or isn't this possible anymore because all cyclist received training.. You can do it for every skill a cyclist didn't receive training on, ofcourse getting to the 12 will be more difficuly but if you started with a one 10-skilled trainer and now are on a 13 or 14 skilled trainer your total on the trained skill should be somewhere between .500 and .650 higher then at the start. (at least that is my estimate). I'm training flat so I can sort this for every cyclist (but not the flat skills) I have 12 cyclist how can I know what is his stat than? For example skills on downhill 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 Does this mean the 1st cyclist has 3.00, cyclist2 2.875, cyclist 3 2.725 Because for skill 2 there are 8 cyclist so 1/8? Or is this calculate in another way? thanks
|
|
|
Post by goof on Oct 27, 2011 21:21:59 GMT 1
The information you show isn't enough to 'calculate' the skill values. In order to know which cyclists have the same value (group), you need to order them from high to low and from low to high. If the order of two cyclists have been exchanged, they have the same skill-value. Also, values like 2.875 are wrong for untrained cyclists. If a skill is not trained, there is only one decimal from .0 - .8 with gaps of .2. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert at this at all. I have never calculated all skill-values, because I think it isn't very important and the puzzling seems like a hell of a job..
|
|
|
Post by ElGringo on Oct 27, 2011 22:24:43 GMT 1
I am not saying I am sure it isn't, but I don't remember anything was said about the influence of the trainer on the trainingspeed was not linear. What I do know for sure is that it was linear in the beta version, because the formula was posted on the forum back then. So unless someone comes up with a link or IP states that I am mistaking, I will keep assuming that it is linear. We can see IP talking about exponential increase on TV peloton.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pelotongeneral&action=display&thread=3540Il Padrino can you tell us the most important diference between the older TV and the new? For us to have the notion of the development of the riders. 2 most important difference: - Only the primary skills matter now for the TV - The TV increases exponentially with the skills. For example: Before: if 1 skill point = €10.000, then 2 skill points = €20.000, 3 = €30.000, and so on. Now: if 1 skill point = €10.000, then 2 skill points = €25.000, 3 = 50.000, and so on. (numbers are fictional, by the way)
|
|
|
Post by Quatannens on Oct 28, 2011 0:36:21 GMT 1
The transfervalue does increase exponentially, but the increase of skill in function of the trainers skill might be linear.
|
|
|
Post by zakelijk on Oct 28, 2011 20:07:36 GMT 1
The information you show isn't enough to 'calculate' the skill values. In order to know which cyclists have the same value (group), you need to order them from high to low and from low to high. If the order of two cyclists have been exchanged, they have the same skill-value. Also, values like 2.875 are wrong for untrained cyclists. If a skill is not trained, there is only one decimal from .0 - .8 with gaps of .2. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert at this at all. I have never calculated all skill-values, because I think it isn't very important and the puzzling seems like a hell of a job.. Is it alwaysa gap of 0.2? What would be the skills than for my players I posted above?
|
|
triplef
Amateur Team
Team Camargue
Posts: 138
|
Post by triplef on Oct 28, 2011 21:00:52 GMT 1
The information you show isn't enough to 'calculate' the skill values. In order to know which cyclists have the same value (group), you need to order them from high to low and from low to high. If the order of two cyclists have been exchanged, they have the same skill-value. Also, values like 2.875 are wrong for untrained cyclists. If a skill is not trained, there is only one decimal from .0 - .8 with gaps of .2. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert at this at all. I have never calculated all skill-values, because I think it isn't very important and the puzzling seems like a hell of a job.. Is it alwaysa gap of 0.2? What would be the skills than for my players I posted above? Like goof said, no-one can conclude anything from what you posted. You also need to post the order from lowest to highest, and then maybe someone can help you...
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Oct 28, 2011 22:08:14 GMT 1
you have to do it like this make a list of your riders sorted ascending f.i.
AC-1 BH-1 CE-1 DA-1 EM-1 FS-2 GB-2 HD-2 II-2 JM-2 KK-2 LA-3 and then one descending ; LA-3 JM-2 KK-2 II-2 HD-2 GB-2 FS-2 CE-1 DA-1 EM-1 AC-1 BH-1 Those who are not exactly in reversed order have the same skill. f.i. AC and BH - also CE, DA and EM and since you know there are only 5 possible decimals per skillpont you can conclude that the lowest 2 have 1.0 or 1.2 or 1.4 or 1.6 and the three above have 1.2 or 1.4 or 1.6 or 1.8.
|
|
|
Post by Genomico on Oct 30, 2011 20:42:09 GMT 1
The ones started at .2, popped after 5 trainings.
|
|
|
Post by Genomico on Oct 30, 2011 20:49:47 GMT 1
But but, I had a new 18 year old cyclist starting at 2.8 and he didn't pop this week. So with a 14-skill trainer such a rider won't doesn't 0.2 yet.
|
|
|
Post by Schizm on Oct 30, 2011 20:53:38 GMT 1
My .4 starters only popped this week (my .2 didn"t) only difference is that I skipped training my trainer once (he is at 14 now instead of 15). That was also the reason why I believed that progress was not far above 0.6 last time.
|
|
|
Post by Genomico on Oct 31, 2011 17:34:44 GMT 1
Today I got a new cyclist with mountain skill 2.8. At the start of the game I had 3 cyclists on 2.0. The 18 and 19 year old cyclists trained more than 0.8 in 5 weeks, but the 22 year old one less.
|
|
|
Post by zakelijk on Nov 1, 2011 20:33:27 GMT 1
you have to do it like this make a list of your riders sorted ascending f.i. AC-1 BH-1 CE-1 DA-1 EM-1 FS-2 GB-2 HD-2 II-2 JM-2 KK-2 LA-3 and then one descending ; LA-3 JM-2 KK-2 II-2 HD-2 GB-2 FS-2 CE-1 DA-1 EM-1 AC-1 BH-1 Those who are not exactly in reversed order have the same skill. f.i. AC and BH - also CE, DA and EM and since you know there are only 5 possible decimals per skillpont you can conclude that the lowest 2 have 1.0 or 1.2 or 1.4 or 1.6 and the three above have 1.2 or 1.4 or 1.6 or 1.8. so you don't know exactly who has 1.2 and who has 1.4 or 1.6 right? What's the reason than that users are sorting this players?
|
|
|
Post by googolplex on Nov 1, 2011 20:54:05 GMT 1
so you don't know exactly who has 1.2 and who has 1.4 or 1.6 right? What's the reason than that users are sorting this players? In that example, you don't. Only that AC=BH<DA=CE=EM. In some cases, especially if you have more cyclists, it is possible to get a lot better results.
|
|